DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...

7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 1/27

The Habermasian Public Sphere: Taking Difference Seriously?Author(s): Lincoln DahlbergSource: Theory and Society, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 111-136Published by: Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501718 .

Accessed: 14/10/2013 16:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501718?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501718?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer



TheoryndSociety2005)34:111-136 @Springer005

The Habermasianpublic sphere:Takingdifference eriously?

LINCOLNDAHLBERG

Wellington,ewZealand

Abstract.Thepublic phere onceptionontinueso holdcentertage ndebates nd

visionsofradical emocraticociety, ndJiirgenHabermas' ork ontinuesobe the

mostpopulartarting oint ordevelopinghisconception. owever,heHabermasian

public phere asalsocomeunderpowerfulndsustainedriticismrommanyquar-ters.Here concentratepon hecritiquesf a groupof theoristso whom referasdifference emocrats.examinehe hree eyargumentsfthese ritics:hat hepublic

sphereonceptionnvolves heexclusion f aesthetic-affectiveodesof communica-

tionandhence hevoicesof certain roups;hattassumeshatpower anbeseparatedfrompublicdiscourse,whichmasks xclusion nddomination;nd hat tpromotesconsensus sthepurpose f deliberation,hichmarginalizesoices hatdonotread-

ily agree.Against hese claimsI showthat he Habermasianublicsphere an be

read smaximizinghe nclusion f differencendeliberativexchange.demonstrate

how heconceptionxtensivelyccommodatesesthetic-affectiveodesofdiscourse,how taccounts orbothnegative ndpositive ormsof powerndiscourse,ndhowit promotesheprocessovertheend-point f rational iscoursen publicopinionformation.

Many ocialandpoliticalheorists ontinueoarguehat trong emoc-

racyrequires public phere f informal itizendeliberationnablingthe formation f rational ublicopinionhatcancritically uidepolit-icalsystems.'JiirgenHabermasemains hestarting oint ora largeproportionf thesetheorists' nderstandingsf thepublic pherebe-causehe continuesoprovidehe mostsystematicallyevelopedriti-caltheory ftheconcept owavailable.Habermas escribeshepublic

sphere s an"intersubjectivelyharedpace" eproducedhroughom-municativeationality.2uchrationality,lso referred o as rational-criticaldiscourse rargumentation,s whereparticipations coordi-natedhroughctsofreaching nderstanding,atherhan hrough go-centric alculationsf success.HabermasirstdevelopedhedetailsofthisconceptionntheStructural ransformationf thePublicSphere(STPS)whereheundertooknhistoricalnalysis f the ateseventeenth







112

andeighteenthenturyEuropean ourgeoispublicsphere.3He hassince abandonedhis flawed exclusionary)nstance f publicness s

thebasis ordemocraticdealsand urnedothemethod f formal rag-matics.Formal ragmaticsllows heidentificationndexplicationfnormative onditions f argumentationresupposed y participantsengagedncommunicativenteraction.4heseconditionsnclude he

thematizationnd reasoned ritiqueof problematic alidityclaims,

reflexivity,dealrole aking combiningmpartialityndrespectfulis-

tening), incerity,ormalnclusion, iscursivequality,ndautonomyfromstateandcorporatenterests.5 ogetherheyconstitute n ide-

alized or normativeonception f the publicsphere,usefulfor theevaluation f the democraticuality f everyday iscursive ractices.

Whilemanysocialandpolitical heorists greewith Habermas on-

cerningheimportancef citizendebate orstrongdemocracy,manyarealsocritical fHabermas'pecificpublic phereormulation.riti-

cismcomes romavariety f theoreticalndpolitical ositions, angingfromrational hoice theorists o communitarianso postmodernists.HereI focusupon hesignificant hallengeo theconception'segiti-

macyput orwardyarange fcriticswhom groupogether ndreferto as difference emocratsueto their ocusonmaximizingnclusioninpoliticaldiscourse.

Difference emocrat riticsof Habermas' arlierSTPSbasedunder-

standing f thepublic phere rguedhat t drewa homogenizingnd

exclusionary oundaryround singularnd opicallyensitive ublicsphere.These hinkersrguedhat hisunderstandingasexclusionary

becausetdeemed omematterse.g.,domestic ffairs) s off limits oconsideration.6owever, ith hemove o the heory f communicative

action,Habermaseemsto havenegated r at leastsidesteppedhese

criticisms;hepublic pheres now definedbya formof communica-

tion andnotby a particularontent.Thepublicspheres constituted

wherever ndwhenever nymatter f livingtogetherwithdifferenceis debated.When alking f thepublic phere,Habermassnottalkingabout homogenous,pecificpublic,butabouthewholearray fcom-

plexnetworksfmultiple ndoverlappingublics onstitutedhroughthecritical ommunicationf individuals,roups, ssociations,ocial

movements,ournalisticnterprises,nd othercivic institutions. ythepublicsphere,Habermass also referringo the universalpub-lic appealedo in moral-practicallaimsaboutustice.Furthermore,thepublicsphererefers o the idealized ormof the conceptionas







113

derived rom hepresuppositionsf communicativeationality,s out-linedabove.

However, ifference emocratslsoquestionhe democraticalidityof thisnotionof a communicativelyonstitutedublicsphere.Theyargue hatthe promotion f a singulardealized ormof thepublicsphereasnormativectstopromote articularoiceswhilemarginal-izingothers.7nthisarticle, explore hreepowerful nd nterlinked

aspectsof thatcritique:he exclusionof aesthetic-affectiveodesofcommunicationndhencecertain roups' oices; heassumptionhat

poweranbe

separatedrom

publicdiscourse,whichmasksexclusion

anddomination;nd hepromotionf consensus s thepurpose f de-

liberation,whichmarginalizesoicesthatdo notreadily gree. nallthreecases thepublicspheredealizations criticized orbeing deo-

logical:heclaim hat t stands s a normof rational-criticaliscourseobscures ts bias towards he voices of particular roups. examinethisthree-prongedritiqueo determinehedemocraticalidityof theHabermasianublic pherentermsof accommodatingifference. odothis,I brackethepost-metaphysicaletcritical tatus laimed or

theconception nd ts derivationhroughormalpragmatics,nd n-stead ocusupon hewayin which hepublicsphere riteria peratein relationo includingmultiple oicesin rational-criticaliscourse.

AlthoughnplacesdisagreeingwithHabermas'articularmphasis,myargument evelopsa strongdefenseof thepublicsphereas con-ceived hroughhe heory f communicativeationality.showhow he

communicativelyonstitutedublic phere an be readso as to offera conceptionensitiveo difference ndappropriates a standardor

informal emocraticontestationf diversepositions.

The form of discourse

Thepublicsphereconception ositsa reflexive,mpartial,easoned

exchangeof validityclaimswhereonlythe force of betterargument"winsout."Difference emocratsrguehat heserequirementsrivi-legeaparticular"rationalist"ormof discourse, nethatencouragesrepresentationalccuracy,ogicalcoherence,nda dispassionatedis-embodied)ontestation f opinion.8This formof discourse eems odrawdirectly pon hestyleof communicationalorizedwithinmod-ernWestern hilosophy ndrealized n the abstruse cademic tyleof argument f modernscholasticactivityandlegal adjudication.9Thisrationalisttyle,accordingothesecritics,s defined gainst ndto the exclusionof its "other":hose "aesthetic-affective"tylesof







114

expression,which includemultiplemodes of everyday ommunica-tionsuchasrhetoric,myth,metaphor,oetry,heatre,ndceremony.'0

These formsof speakingareseparatedromrationaldiscourseanddefined snon-rationalrprivate.

Theexclusionof aesthetic-affectiveodesof everyday ommunica-

tion, romwhat sdefined s the egitimateationalormofdemocratic

discourse,s seenbycritics sprivilegingomegroups' oicesoveroth-ers.More pecifically,hepublic phere onceptions seen as system-aticallymarginalizinghevoices of womenandnon-Westernersons.As Iris

Young rgues,women

andnon-Westernersonsmorereadily- thanwhite,middleclass men- employaesthetic-affective peaking

styles; heir"speech ulture"ends o be "more xcitedandembodied,morevaluing he expression f emotions, heuse of figurativean-

guage,modulationn tone of voice,andwidegesture."''ncontrast,white,middleclassmen's"speechculture"endsto be "morecon-

trolled,without ignificant esture ndexpressionf emotion," hichmeans uchpersonsaregenerallymoreat easewiththedidactic,dis-

embodied,onfrontationaltyle hat,accordingocritics,sprivilegedbyHabermas.hus,asEylaRabinovitchrgues, public pherehat sbasedonrational-criticaliscourseworks o devalue ndexclude hemodesof expression,nd hus hevoicesandpositions, f womenand

marginalizedroups.12Furthermore,he conceptions assimilation-ist andnormalizingecause heonly wayformarginalizedroups o

gain egitimate ntry o thepublic pheres byadoptingheprivilegedmodeofcommunication.13 yhiding xclusion nddominationehinda claim oneutralityndrationality,heconceptioncts deologicallyo

promotehe nterestsfalready owerfulocialgroups.Allthisclearlyunderminesheconception'salidityas a democraticorm.

Theexclusion f aesthetic-affectiveodesof discourses also seenbycriticsas linked o anattempt yHabermasoblockunconsciousro-cesses thathe sees as inhibitingnter-subjectiveommunication.heunconscious eedsto be repressedn order o enableself-reflection,

autonomy,nd rational ommunication. hisattempto exclude he

unconsciousspectsrom ommunicativeationalityuggests, ccord-

ing o PeterDahlgren,aneFlax,andYoung, failureobreakwithwhatJacquesDerridaeferso asthe"metaphysicsfpresence."'4hemeta-

physicsofpresences whereunityand, hus, ransparencyimmediacyandunmediatedness)f meanings assumed chievedn speechacts,which gnoresbothdifference nddeferraln communication. om-municativeationalityainscoherence,ritics rgue, yprivileginghe







115

rationalityide of thebinary ystemreason/desire, ind/body,on-

scious/unconscious,tc. With heexclusion fthenon-rational,ean-

ingis contained nd ransparencychieved.Withransparency,directtransferencef meaning etween peaker nd istener akesplace hatenablesmutual nderstanding.

However, s manytheoristsattest, he unconscious-bodily-affectiveaspectsof communicationannot e removedo revealpurely ational

processesandtruemeaning.15 abermas' nderstandingf rational-critical iscourse,ccordingoYoung,ails o take ntoaccounthefactthat

meaningsalways

nexcessof what anbeunderstoodiscursively,spillingoutbeyondhesymbolic.16Thesymbolic r discursivespects

of communicationassociatedwithreason)cannotbe separatedutfrom hesemioticorfigural spectsof utterancesassociatedwiththe

unconscious,hebody, ndaffect),whichmakesHabermas'onceptionof communicativeationalityeemnotonlynaivebutan instantiationof themetaphysicsf presence.'7Young rgueshat:

Theres noplace n his[Habermas']onceptionf linguisticnteractionorthe eelinghat ccompaniesndmotivatesllutterances.nactual ituations

of discussion,oneofvoice, acialexpression,esture,heuseof irony, n-derstatementrhyperbole,ll serve ocarrywith hepropositional essageoftheutterancenotherevelofexpressionelatingheparticipantsn terms

of attractionrwithdrawal,onfrontationr affirmation.peakersotonly

saywhat heymean,but heysay texcitedly,ngrily,na hurtoroffendedfashion ndsoon,andsuchemotionalualities f communicationontextsshouldnotbethought f asnon-orprelinguistic.I8

Thus, hepublicsphere onception implycannot xcludeaesthetic-affective spectsof interaction,venthoughts formulation aysug-gest his.However,ccordingo differenceemocrats,ts formdoesacttosuppressesthetic-affective odesbydevaluinghem.Thisdevalu-

ingof aesthetic-affective odesof communicationotonlymarginal-izes or excludes hosegroupswhoexpress hem,as seenabove,butlimits the resourcesavailable or achievinggreaterunderstanding.This is because heaesthetic-affectivespectsof interactionctuallycontributen variouswaysto democratic ommunication. akepas-sion, for instance.Passion s not only inseparablerompolitics,as

MichaelWalzer emonstrates,utpositivelyontributesodemocraticcommunication.19s HoggettandThompson ointout,passion,andtheexpression f emotionn general, an be verybeneficial or rea-sonedargumentndunderstanding:

The nterpenetrationf reason ndpassiondoesnotnecessarilyinderhe

operationfreason;nfact t can acilitatetjustaswellas it can rustratet.







116

Reasonwithout assions reasonwithoutnergy rdynamism.or xample,if cutoff fromaggression,eason acksbite andsharpness. he construc-tiveuse of

aggression nderpinshe

capacityocut

through uperfluousr

misleadingetailandgetto the heartof anissue, heability o getholdof

anargumentndcritically issect t,and heabilityo holdontenaciouslyto a vitaltruthwhencounter-argumentsreflyingaround.Moregenerallyhuman motions uchashate, ove,andhopefulnessontributenormouslyto ourcapacitiesoth o understandnd obeunderstoodytheother.20

Differencedemocratsonvincingly rgue hatwe must embracehe

aesthetic-affectiveodesof communicationnorderoadvance emo-

craticculture.They

alsoargue

hatsuchmodesof discourse re nottaken nto accountn Habermas'onception f communicativeatio-

nality,whichendsupmarginalizingertain oicesand imitingunder-

standing.However,want o show hat his s notanecessaryeading f

Habermas'onception.willmakemycaseby focusing n the nextri-

cable inkbetweenhesymbolic nd hesemiotic,eavingheproblemof theoverflowfmeaning nd ubsequentimitationnunderstandingto thefollowing ectionof this article.

The dea hat hepublic phere fcommunicativeationalityxcludes rsuppressesesthetic-affectiveodesof discourses baseduponapar-ticularly arroweading f theconception.This"rationalist"eadingdoesnotsimply esultrompoor tylizationsf theconceptionycritics

attemptingoilluminateheirownpositions,21ut s alsosupportedyHabermas'wnpersonal ntipathyowards esthetic-affectiveodesof communicationn politics.22Thisreadingof thepublicsphere s

furtherncouraged ya recentAmerican,iberal train f deliberativedemocratic

heoryhatdoes ndeed

promote stronglyationalistense

ofpolitical ommunication.23

In contrasto sucha reading,hepublicsphereconception as set

out in the conditions have outlinedabove- does make roomfor

aesthetic-affectivespects fdiscourse,whichclearly annot, ndneed

not,be whollyseparatedromrational ommunication.herequire-mentsof the conceptionhat are seen as mostexclusionary f the

aesthetic-affectiveodes reflexivity,mpartiality,ndthe reasoned

contestationfvalidity laims arenotonlycomplementedy require-ments hatembrace ifferenceinclusion,quality,mutualespect) utin themselves onot exclude heaesthetic-affectiveimensionsf in-

teraction.First,reflexivity houldnot be limited o systematic, na-

lyticalreflection,ndcertainly ot todry,dispassionate,elf-analysis.Reflexivity hould nclude,as ScottLashemphasizes, estheticand







117

hermeneuticimensions;s well aslogical elf-monitoring,eflexivityinvolves ntuition nd magination, hichdrawonfeeling.24 econd,

theassumptionhat mpartialityromotes on-emotional,bstracted,disembodiedialogues alsomistaken.mpartialityndicates,sSelyaBenhabib otes,an ethic of "fairness"ather hana non-empathetic,disembodied,udgment.25 ccordingo SimoneChambers,rawinguponKant's olitical hilosophy,mpartialityspartof therequirementof idealrole aking, emandinghat atherhanparticipantsbstractingthemselves,heyattemptoput hemselvesnthepositionofthe"con-creteother"and assess the situation romthe other'sperspective.26

Impartialitys

complementedn this

processbythe condition f re-

spectful istening hat urtherinkscognitive ndaffectiveaspectsofinteraction. fcourse, ttaining nderstandingnd mpartialudgmentisalwaysimited ndpartialnpractice ivencontext ependentubjectpositioning.But thepointhere s that heattempto take hepositionof theconcrete thernorderojudgeproblemsmorempartiallys notbereftof feeling.Third,hereciprocalontestation f validity laimsdoesnot limitexchangeothedispassionatetyleof interrogationnd

analysis ften oundnmodernawand cience.Theexchange f valid-

ityclaimsandreasons houldnotsimplybeequatedwith"dry ogic."Positionsworth efending illusually earticulatednd easonedwitha degreeof passionandcommitment.

Toillustrate hisargumenturther, will examine hepublicsphereof communicativeationalityn relation o threemodesof aesthetic-affective mbued xpressionhatYoungdentifies s notonly impor-tantbut necessary o democratic iscourse: reeting,rhetoric,and

storytelling.27reetingrpublicacknowledgment

nvolves"gesturesof respectandpoliteness"hatactto signifythatpartieswill listen

to one another nd takeeach others'positions eriously.28s such,greetingresonatesnot onlywith the differencedemocrats'oncernwithrecognitionf theidentity f theother,butalso withtherequire-ments orrational eliberationnthepublic phere.Greeting elpsgetdeliberationsnderway. s Young ays,

Greetingasa very mportantlace .. in situationsf communication

amongpartieswhohavea problem rconflict,andtryto reach ome so-lution hrough iscussion.. Thepolitical unctions f suchmoments f

greetingareto assertdiscursivequality nd establish rre-establishhetrustnecessaryfor discussionto proceedin good faith ... [W]ithoutsuch

spokenmomentsfpoliteness,eference,cknowledgementftheparticularperspectivef others,heirgoodwillandcontributionothecollective, is-cussion tselfwouldoftenbreakdown.29







118

Thusgreetings complementaryodeliberations,etting hestage orrational eliberationveroftenstronglydisputedssues.Storytelling

or narrative lso contributeso communicativeationality.t does sobyfostering understandingmongmembers f apolitywithverydif-ferentexperiences rassumptionsboutwhat s important."30torytellingfacilitates ommunicativeationalityn various evels.First,it helpsto makeclaimsvisibleas significantoncerns orpublicde-batewhentheymayotherwise ot be recognizedwithina particularhegemonic iscursive rderbecauseof "pre-understandings"f whatis legitimate.Storytellingangive a generalaccountof whya par-ticular

problemonstitutes n

injusticeneedingpublicattention,nd

morespecifically,t can contributeo the developmentf a sharednormativeanguagehatallowsapreviously n-namednjusticeobe

spoken.31 oungrecallshow sexualharassmentame to be named,andsubsequentlyebated,nthe1970sand1980sas a resultof story-telling:"Asa resultof women ellingstories o eachotherandto thewiderpublicsabouttheir treatmentby men on thejob ... a problemthathadno namewas graduallydentified ndnamed,anda socialmoraland egaltheoryabout heproblem eveloped."32econd, nce

a problems namedandrecognized s an injustice, torytellingancontributeo rational ommunicationyhelpingo"explainmeaningsandexperiences hengroupsdo notshare remises ufficientlyopro-ceed [or continue]with an argument."33s such,storytelling elpsin the takingof the other'sperspectives.t helps groups o counter

prejudices ndstereotypes, nd to come to someunderstandingftheexperiences,eeds,andconcerns f differentlyituated roups.34Third, torytellingan be centralo the communicativeractices f"local" r"counter"r

"diasporic"ublics,helpingdevelopdentities

andpositionsbeforeclaimsandreasonsarethematizedn thelargerpublic.35 torytelling ften worksat thesethree evels at once. For

example,RobertGoodin ells of the democraticole of fiction,and

particularlyf theautobiographicalccountsof freedslaves.36Nar-rativehelpedslavesto clarifytheir ownsituation, ain recognitionfor theirclaims ojustice,andbetter ommunicateheirexperiences,identities, ndpositions. n herfascinating ase studyof Canadian

Aboriginalandclaims,AngeliaMeanssimilarlydemonstratesow

narrativemay be used to gain recognitionor, and understandingof, otherwise silencedpositionswithin inter-cultural rgumentation.37

Hence, storytelling, like greeting, can strongly enhance acts of

communicationaimed at understandingthat constitute the public

sphere.







119

Attheheart f aesthetic-affectiveodesof communicationsrhetoric.Rhetorics abouthowsomethings said, heaffective, mbodied,nd

stylisticaspectsof communication.38tis about heuse of languageopersuade,ndsome deliberativeheoristsncludingHabermaso seeit as a threato rational eliberation. hambersrgueshat nterlocu-torsmustonlybe addressedn termsof theirrational apacity:heymustbe "convinced"y theforceof reason ather han"persuaded"byrhetoricalerformance.39owever,hetoricimplycannotbe sep-aratedromcommunication.s shown arlier, anydiscursive ontentandarguments embodied n situated tyleandrhetoric."40rguingthata certain ormof communicationoesnotcontain hetorics sim-

plynaive about he rhetoricalorce nvolvedn thatparticularorm,

includingntheform hat s signified snon-rhetorical.hecontrolledand measured xpressionhat is often usedin politicsinvolves herhetoricalrickof gainingattention ndauthority y drawing n so-cial codesof rationalitynd mpartiality,eflecting ttentionrom he

partialitynvolved.41

Notonlyis rhetoric lwaysa partof communication,utrhetoric an

makeapositive ontributiono communicativeationalityy enablinggroupso address articularublicsappropriatelyndeffectively,hus

aiding hethematizationndexplanationf claims.42Whilerhetoriccan be deployedo win supportordominant ositions, t mayalsobe usedto drawattentiono marginalizedoncerns.43This wasthecasewiththe rhetoric eployedn the CivilRightsmovementn theUnitedStatesnthe1960s.44 twasalsothecase,asMauriceCharland

explains,with he"impious"etcivil rhetoric f MockParliamentsntheCanadian oman's

uffrageampaign: Througharodic peeches- such as debatingwhy men should not have the vote - they [the

suffragettes]olitelysought o produceaughter gainstheir nstitu-tionalised xclusion.""45ockParliamentsnabledwomenofficiallyexcludedrom hedominantolitical phereoargueheir ase npub-lic. Suchrhetorics a formof civicprotest.Some"rationalist"elib-erativedemocratsmaywishto excludeprotestrom hepublic pherebecause f itsconnotationsfuncivility.However,rotestsverymucha communicativectwhenundertakeniththeaimof raisingssues

for deliberationather han o coerce.Theuse of signsandbanners,streetdemonstration,uerrillaheatre, anceandsong,offlineandon-linesit-ins,cyber-parody,raffiti ndposters, tc.utilizecreative ndsometimes disruptive"ormsofrhetorichroughwhichmarginalizedgroups angaina hearingortheirvoices andcallintoquestionmore







120

dominantositions. sYoungotes, owdy emonstrations,ramatic

performances,nd ven"disorderliness,"an allattentionotheargu-

ments f excludedoicesandmake thersustifyheir ositionsmorethoroughly.46

Eachof theseaesthetic-affectivembuedmodesof communicationcancontributeowardshecommunicativeeasoninghat onstitutesthepublic phere.However,ot all formsof communicationon-tributeorationaleliberation,ndsomemustberepressedn orderto maximizenclusion.Wemustbewary f certainmanifestationsfaesthetic-affectivend

"dispassionate"ommunicative

tyles.Justas

narrowubduedeliberativeormsmay quashifference,otoomightstronglyassionatetyles.47 distinctionan,andmust, e made e-tweenorms fdiscoursehat ontributeogreater nderstandingndonesthatarecoercive.Richard ortyopposesucha distinction.

agreewithRortyhatwe shouldhink f reasonsimplystheprocessof reaching greementy persuasion,"hichmeans hat he "stan-dardPlatonic ndKantianichotomyf reason nd eelingbeginsofadeaway."48owever,disagreehatweneeda"blurringfthe ine

betweenhetorical anipulationndgenuine alidity-seekingrgu-ment" or discourse o be more nclusiveof difference.49This "blur-

ring"s notwise.Recent istory learly emonstratesowrhetoriccanbe used o dominatendexclude. ome ortof "line"mustbe"drawn"etweenhetoricalanipulationnd hetoricalersuasionnorderomaximizeifference.50his s whathepublic phereequire-ments o.Theyudgen favor f forms fdiscourse,hetherbstract

logicorstronglyassionatetorytelling,otheextenthathey nhancedemocratic

articipationimed t

reachingnderstanding.he riteria

of idealrole aking ctto exclude rrepressoerciveorms f dis-course uchaspropaganda,eception,trategizing,ogmaticanting,andemotionallackmail.heapplicationf such ulesof discourse,althoughereposed s idealizationsorcriticalvaluation,avebeenfoundnpracticeo benecessaryo sustainnclusive eliberationsnd"containffect,"ndhaveprovenuccessfulvennthemostvolatilesituationsnvolvingtrong ifferencenddisagreement.51

Thus,hepublicpheresdefinedyrational-criticaliscourse,formofcommunicationhatdoesnotdevalue esire ndpassion utrathersets hecriteriaor heir ommunicativexpression.52sDanielHallinargues:Reasonnthis ense s notopposedopassion,ut otraditionand uthority,ocoercion,ndinally-becauseearedealingerewithcommunicativendnot nstrumentalationalityit isopposedothe







121

strategicursuit f ends hatare hemselvesubjectodialogue."53hedemocraticalidityof political ommunication,o matterwhat orm

that ttakes, anbejudgedaccordingo thepublic phereequirementsunderstoodnterms ftheexpansive eadinghavegiven.However,he

argumenthatsome formsof communicationhouldbe excludedorrepressed)romdeliberationrings s back o the ransparencyhargesintroduced arlier.The exclusionof formsof discourse hat nvolvecoercion mplies hatpowercan be readily dentified ndexcluded,whichsomecriticsargues bothnaiveanddangerous.willnowturnto anexaminationf thisargument.

Power,ransparency,ndthesubject

This differentiationf persuasionrom coercion eads somecritics,

particularlyhose nfluencedyFoucault'snalysis f power,o arguethatHabermasonceivesheoperationfpowerasnegative,ranspar-ent,andable o beremovedrom ommunication.notherwords,he isseenasassuminghat n theprocess fcommunicationnsincerity, a-

nipulation,oercion,domination,tc. can be exposedandsummarilyremoved ndhenceunderstandingchieved.54 riticsargue hat hisideaof power s naiveat best.DrawinguponFoucaultn particularandpoststructuralismngeneral, heyarguehatpower annot efullyidentified ndremovedromdiscourse, ndthat t actspositivelytoconstituteubjects) swellasnegatively.nfact,by calling orthe re-movalof power,Habermas'onception f communicativeationalitymayact deologically yobscuringhepower elationstcontains. venif we

accepthe

argumentmade nthe

previousectionof this

article- that hediscursiveormof theconceptionmaximizesnclusion nd

equalityhusminimizing omination ndexclusion we stillhave oadmit hat heconception emands ertain ehaviorromparticipants.Criticsnterprethesedemands stheoperationfpositive,disciplinarypower.DanaVillaargueshat hepublic pherenormativeriteriaep-resents nexemplaryormof whatFoucaulthowed stheoperationfmodemdisciplinary ower,whichreliesnotuponhierarchical,sym-metricaldominationutupon hesubjugationf selvesthroughub-

jectification. [T]henormalizingharacterf communicativection"mustbe admitted:the elf-surveillancef thecivically irtuous itizen

(whohas nternalizedhehegemoniconceptionf thepublicgood)or

communicativelyational gent whohasintemrnalisedhehegemonicconception f whatconstitutesthe betterargument').""'hepublicsphere onceptionnforces normalizing,isciplinarymechanism,







122

positivedisciplining ower, onstitutingubjectss "rational"ommu-nicators.Theargumentf critics ikeJean-Franqoisyotard, hantal

Mouffe, ndVilla s that"toactaccordingo anormstobenormalizedin somesense."56

Thisdisciplinings instrong ontrasto Habermas'laim hat nargu-mentationubjectsreelyputforward ndrationally hallenge orma-tiveconditions.However,ritics espondhat hisclaimsimply howsthatHabermasontinuesorelyupona modernistationalubject,ur-ther einforcinghesuspicionhatcommunicativectionsbasedupona

simplistic ransparencyheory.Youngargueshat

despitehis insis-

tenceupona breakwithsubject-centeredeason,Habermaseassertsa rational, bstractedubject.57 e presumes unified,ranscendent

subjectwhostandsnahighlyreflective elationohis orher nterests,values,andfeelings,and in relation o othersandthe worldat large.JohnPeters rgueshat"Habermas'itizens esembleRousseau'sde-natured' itizensperceivinghegeneralwill or Kant'sworld-citizens

purged f all 'particularnterests' r JohnRawls'citizens emporarilyignorantf theirownparticularities."58arkPoster oesevenfurther

in emphasizinghisdecontextualization,tatinghat:"thesubject orHabermasemains re-given, re-linguistic.""59hus, ettingcommu-nicative ationalitys the norm or democratic ulturedemandsub-

jectswhocanseparateeasonromunreason,ruthromies,persuasionfromcoercion, tc.Difference emocratsparticularlyorepostmod-ern nfluencednes)stressnsteadhesociallyconstitutedelf,whichis embedded,ragmentedndmultiplied,ndis thusunable o standoutsideof andobjectivelyritiqueelf,othersandthe worldatlarge,

includinghe

operationfpower.

Ibelieve hiscritique fpower, ransparency,nd hesubjects largelybasedupona poorcharacterizationf Habermas'osition.Therearethreemainmisunderstandingshatneed to be cleareduphere,to dowithpoweras negative,as able to be easilyremoved, nd as ableto

be clearly dentified.First,Habermas oesnot definepoweras sim-

ply negative ndas therefore eeding o be summarilyemovedrom

the public sphere.Thepublicspherenormcalls for "coercion-free

communication"ndnotpower-freeommunication. abermasm-phasizes hepositivepowerof communicativenteraction ithin he

publicsphere hroughwhichparticipantssewords o do thingsandmake hingshappen.60ommunicativeationalityraws nthe "forceof better rgument"oproducemoredemocraticitizens, ulture, ndsocieties.Subjects re ndeedmoldedhroughhisconstitutingower,







123

but heir ransformationstowardsreedomndautonomyatherhantowardsubjugationndnormalization.sJeffreyAlexanderoints

out, o actaccordingo a normsnot hesame s tobenormalized.61Thepublicspherenormprovidesa structurehroughwhichcriticalreflectionnconstrainingrdominatingocialrelations ndpossibili-ties for reedom an akeplace.As Chambersrgues,ational iscoursehere s about"theendlessquestioningf codes,"hereasoned ues-

tioningof normalization.62his s theverytypeof questioningriticslikeLyotard,Mouffe,and Villa areengagedn despiteclaiming he

normalizingndrepressive ower fcommunicativeationality.hesecriticshave

yetto

explain dequatelyow

heyescapehis

performativecontradiction,lthoughheymaynotbe too concernedoescape t.63

Theformof power hat s to be excluded romdiscoursen thepub-lic sphere s thatwhich imitsanddisablesdemocraticarticipationand eads o communicativenequalities. oercion nddominationre

(ideally)excluded romthepublicsphere,whichincludes ormsofdominationesultingrom hemaldistributionf material ndauthor-itative esourceshat eadtodiscursivenequalities. hisemphasis n

the idealexclusionof coercion ntroduceshe secondpointof clari-fication,hat he dominationreepublicspheres an idealizationorthepurposes f critique.Habermassmore hanaware f thefact hat,as NancyFraser,Mouffe,andYoungremindus, coercive ormsof

power,ncludinghose hatresult romsocial nequality,anneverbe

completelyeparatedrom hepublic phere.64laimshat uchpowerhasbeenremovedromanyreally-existingeliberativerena anonlybe madeby ignoring rhiding heoperationf power.However,hisdoesnot mean hata reductionncoercion nddominationannotbeachieved.ndeed,his is preciselywhata democraticoliticsmustdo.Toaid hisproject,hepublic phere onceptionetsa critical tandardforevaluationfeverydayommunication.hambersuts hisnicely:

Criticismequires normativeackdropgainstwhichwe criticize.Crit-

icizingthewayspowerand dominationlaythemselves ut in discourse

presupposesconceptionf discoursen which here s no[coercive] oweranddomination.notherwords,o defend hepositionhat heres amean-

ingfuldifference etweenalking nd ighting, ersuasionnd oercion,nd

byextension,eason ndpowernvolvesbeginningwith dealizations.hatis, it involvesdrawing picture f undominatediscourse.65

However,his discussion f theidealizingtatusof thenormdoes notanswer laims hat t invokesa transparencyheoryof knowledge.wouldargue hatsuchclaimsnotonlyfallprey o another erforma-tive contradictionof presupposinghat he use of rational iscourse







124

canestablishhe mpossibilityf rational iscourseevealingruth nd

power butarealsobasedona poorreading f Habermas'heoryof

communicativeationality. his is the thirdpointof clarification.ncontrasto themetaphysicsf presence,he differentiationf persua-sion fromcoercionnthepublic pheredoesnotposita naive heoryof thetransparencyf power,andmeaningmoregenerally.Thepub-lic sphere onception s baseduponcommunicativeationality oesnot assumea Cartesianautonomous,isembodied,econtextualized)subjectwho canclearlydistinguishetweenpersuasionndcoercion,

good and badreasons, rue and untrue laims,and thenwhollyre-movethemselves nd heircommunicationsromsuch nfluence.For

Habermas,ubjectsare alwayssituatedwithinculture.The publicspheres positedupon ntersubjectiveatherhan ubject-centereda-

tionality. t is throughheprocessof communicativeationality,ndnot via a Cartesianubject,hatmanipulation,eception, oorreason-

ing, andso on, are identified ndremoved, ndby whichmeaningscan be understoodndcommunicated.n otherwords, t is throughrational-criticalommunicationhatdiscoursemovesaway romcoer-cionornon-publiceason owardsreaterationalommunicationnd

a stronger ublicsphere.Thecircularityereis not a problem, s itmayseem,but s infacttheveryessenceof democratization:hroughthepractice f democracy,emocraticractices advanced.

Thisdemocratizingrocesscanbe furtherllustratedn theimportantandchallengingaseof social nequalities. emocraticheoristsbothdeliberativenddifference)enerally gree hatsocial nequalitiesl-

waysleadto somedegreeof inequalitiesn discourse.Thus, heide-alized

public phereof full discursivenclusion nd

equality equiresthat ocial nequalitieseeliminated. ethow s social nequalityo be

fully dentified,etaloneeliminated?he dealizationeemswholly n-

adequateivencontemporaryapitalist ystemsandassociated ocial

inequality. owever,t is intheveryprocessof argumentation,ven f

flawed,hat he dentificationndcritique f social nequality,nd hus

of communicativenequality,s able o develop. ndeed, ublic pheredeliberationftencomes ntoexistencewhenandwherepeoplebecome

passionate bout ocialinjustice ndpublicly hematize roblems f

social nequality. hus he"negative ower" f social nequality aswith other ormsof coercion is broughto lightandcritique ythe

very discourse t is limiting.

This s not osay hat ubjects remerely ffectsofdiscourse,hat hereareno critical ocialagentsacting ntheprocess. t is not to saythat







125

subjectswithindiscourse annot hemselvesdentify egativeormsof

power, annot eflexivelymonitor heirownarguments,annot atio-

nallycriticize therpositions, ndso on.Theycan,and npractice o,despiteheinstabilityf meaning.Thepoint s that hisreasoningnd

understandings (provisionally)chievedhroughhesubject'situat-ednessndiscourse atherhanvia apre-discursivebstractubject.AsKennethBaynesargues,t is through iscoursehat ubjects chievea

degreeof reflective istancewhatwe couldcallautonomy)rom heir

situations, enablinghem o revise heirconceptionsf what s valu-ableorworthy fpursuit,and]o assessvarious ourses f actionwith

respecto thoseends."66emocraticiscourse

eneratesivic-oriented

selves, nter-subjective eanings ndunderstandings,nddemocratic

agreementshatcan be seen as the basisof publicsovereignty. ow-

ever, he ideaof communicativelyroduced greements, hich nthe

publicsphereareknownaspublicopinions,has also comeunder x-tensive riticismntermsof excluding ifference,riticism hat wanttoexplorenthe nextsection.

The endsof discourse: ublicopinionormation

Thestarting ointof discoursesdisagreementverproblematicalid-

ityclaims.However, certain mount f agreement,rat leastmutual

understanding,s presupposedhen nterlocutorsngage nargumen-tation.All communicationresupposesmutualunderstandingn the

linguistic ermsused- that nterlocutorsse the same terms n thesameway.67 urthermore,n undertakingational-criticaliscourse,

accordingo Habermas'ormal

pragmaticeconstruction,nterlocu-

tors also presupposehe same formalconditions f argumentation.These sharedpresuppositionsnablerational-criticaliscourse o beundertaken. owever, s seenabove,meanings never ixedandun-

derstandingsalways artial.Understandingndagreementntheuseof linguisticermsand of what t means o be reasonable,eflexive,sincere, nclusive,non-coercive,tc. takesplacewithindiscourse ndis anongoingpoliticalprocess.

There s one more mportantense of agreementhat s presupposedby participantsundertakingargumentation: onsensus upon moral-

practicalclaims,which meansagreementon claims thatimplicatethe

values and practicesof all persons in a community.For Habermas,

moral-practicallaims,unlike ethical orpragmatic laims,presuppose

general agreementdue to their universal nature. When referringto







126

discoursenthepublic phere, atherhan nofficialdecision-making,thisconsensuss what s knownas (rational-critical)ublicopinion

(which s centralo strongdemocracy ecausenecessaryo hold de-cisionmakers ccountable). owever,manydifference emocrats re

vehemently pposedo the ideaof consensus eingsetas thegoalof

political ommunication.68hese heorists mphasizeheirreducibil-

ityof differencendarguehatpublicopinionntheformofconsensusin pluralist ocieties s not possiblewithoutdomination nd exclu-sion. Consensus,heyargue,canonlyresultfrom a disciplining fdifferencehatsuppresseshe "true"gonisticnature f politics.Con-sensus

hroughiscourses

"equatedithacollective

ubjectivityhat

is inherentlyotalitarian"r "a ypeof disciplinaryction consensualdisciplines) imedattamingandbringing rder o a worldof unrulydifference."69laims o rationally erived onsensus ctto hide this

disciplining.

Ibelieve hat his s apoorreading f Habermas'deaof agreement,tleastintermsof the formation f publicopinionnthepublicsphere(c.f. inofficialdecision-making).want opointouttwomainreasons

whyIbelieve his sso,whichwillhelp urtherlarifyhepublic phereconception.First,Habermas oes notnaivelycelebrate ndpromoteconsensus.He sees "false" onsensus esultingrom"distortions"n

democratic ommunication.alseconsensusmayarisefromexplicitcoercion, omination,ndexclusion.This s soin thecaseofthe hreatsandbribeshatareusedby powerful roupsobuildcoalitionsnsup-portofvariousmilitary ndeconomic bjectives. alseconsensus lsooccursna moresubtleway, hroughhedominancef certainunder-

standingsnd

practiceshatcloseoff

critiquenddiscussion f alter-

nativepositions.This is thecasewhere radition oesunquestioned,thussupportinghestatus uosocialrelations.t s alsowhatHabermasrefers o whenspeaking f instrumental-strategicationalitynvadingandcolonizinghepublicsphere, urning easoning way romques-tions ofjusticeto technocraticuestions f means.70 or nstance,n

consumerocietyquestioningargely evolves roundwhatare hebestchoicesbetweenproductsn the market or individual eedsatisfac-tion. Another xamples given by the so-called"waron terrorism."

In this case discussion in the mainstreampublic spherehas revolvedaroundhetechnical-strategicuestions f howto eradicate theen-

emy,"atherhan eflexive ngagement ith hemoral-practicalssues

underlyingheconflict, uchasthepoliticalandeconomicnsecurityfeltinmany egions f theworlddue o Westernconomic ndculturaldominance. alseconsensus, sYoungpointsout,is alsodeveloping







127

in the UnitedStatesandelsewhere roundmajor ocial andenviron-mentalproblems,uchas thecausesandcuresof povertyandgreen

housegases.71Despitevigorousdebate,hestatusquosocialsystemof capitalist roductionndconsumptionoes unquestionedecausemodelsofhuman rganizationhat adicallyhallengehepresent ys-temhavebeen argely xcludedrompublic rgument,hich s focusedon individual-consumernd echnical-marketolutions.

Some democraticheoriesdopromote onsensuswithoutadequatelyconsideringuch"distortions."ouffe s right o criticizehosecon-sensusmodelsof third

waytheorists ndmorerationalist eliberative

democratshat laim nclusionwhileattemptingoriddecisionmakingof confrontationetweentrong deological ositions.72et,Mouffe s

wrong olumpall so-calleddeliberativeemocratsntogether.Ratio-nalist"deliberativeemocratsocusonproceduresf democraticea-

soning,often ailing oaccount or herelations fpowernvolved.73n

contrast,ritical eliberativeemocratsikeBenhabib ndJohnDryzek

proposea publicspherediscoursenvolvingboth confrontationnd

respectful istening.74Moreover,hesetheoristsollowHabermasn

acknowledginghatdistortionsnevery-dayommunication ill leadto false consensus.Difference emocratsmayrespondhat herecanneverbe a "true"onsensusincepower annot eseparatedrom om-munication.However,s already oted, hepublic phere onceptionis an idealizationhatwill notbefullyrealizednpractice.tspurposeis to help identify, ritique, ndchallengeblockageso freeandcriti-cal communicationo thatwe can move owardshe idealizedpublicsphere ndrational ublicopinion.Thepublic pheredealizations acheck

againstalseconsensus.

Second, n Habermas' two-track"odel of deliberativeemocracypublicopinion ormationhroughommunicativeationalitynpublicspheresdistinctrom,although ltimatelyinkedo,formal rocessesof government.75nlike ormaldecision-making,n thepublic pherethere s nourgencyrexacting emandorafinaldecision.Participants,whenundertakingiscoursenvolvingmoral-practicallaims,presup-posethatreaching nderstandingragreementould"inprinciple"e

achieved.However, thephraseinprinciple' xpressesheidealizingproviso:f onlytheargumentationouldbeconductedpenlyenoughand continuedongenough."'76ational onsensus anonlybe non-

coercivelychievedfdiscourses continuedndefinitely.hus,tis notsuchaproblemhatundistortedonsensus anneverbefullyrealized.Inpractice,publicopinion s always n theprocessof formation.As







128

Chambersays:"Consensualgreement,f andwhen t doesemerge,emerges raduallynd s fragmentaryndpartial."77

It is theprocess hatcounts.Agreementmayultimatelymotivate is-

course,buttheprocess s more mportanthan he ends.Theprocessis one of Bildung romwhichrational nderstandings,itizens,and

publicopinionsdevelop.78 hambersxplainshisnicely:

Therationalityf publicopinionandwill formationn generaldoesnot

depend ncitizens eachingrationalonsensusn all ssues.Adiscursivelyformedpublicopinion anrepresent processof Bildung reducationn

whichcitizensbuildbetteroundationso theiropinionshrough iscursiveinteraction.hrough iscursiventeractionn variousssuesfromwho arewe?to the bestmeansof securing eficit eduction,itizensbecomemoreinformedbouthe ssues;heybecome ware fwhatothers hink nd eel;

they e-evaluateheir ositionsn ightof criticism ndargument;nshort, y

defendingheiropinionswithreason heiropinions ecomemore easoned.The resultof such interactions thatpublicopinionand the exerciseofdemocraticesponsibilityreembeddednreasonedonvictions,lthoughreasonedonvictionsonotalways eed o reflect consensus n an ssue.79

Private ndividuals re transformedntopubliccitizensthroughhelearningprocessf deliberation,eveloping ublicopinion(s)hatcanholdgovernmentccountable.gain, his s a rational rocessbutnotone bereftof agonisticaspects.As Chambersrgues,"disagreement,conflict,dispute,argumentation,pposition,n short,naysaying, reessentialaspectsof the discourse rocess."80

This idea of public opinionas an ongoing process of rational

learning hroughargumentations

opposedo both the liberaland

communitarian odels of publicity,models that some critics ofHabermas'public sphere conceptioncome close to in theirown

theories.81 abermas,longwithothercriticaldeliberativeheorists,

stronglyrejectsthe liberalmodel of politicalcommunication nd

publicopinion.Political ommunicationnliberalismsreducedo the

strategictruggle etweennterest roupsor heattentionndsupportof anaudience f self-seeking nddividedprivatendividuals. ublic

opinionbecomes heaggregationf theprivately xpressed pinions

of isolatedpersons.82 t the sametime,rational ublicopiniondoesnot referto Rousseau's generalwill,"whichHabermas alls "thefalse model of a formationof will" because it is not based on respectfordifference.83nSTPSHabermasriticizesRousseau'sdemocracyof non-public pinion"becauseRousseau onceivesof the generalwill as a "consensusf hearts ather hanof argument."84abermas







129

rejectshiscivic-republicanrcommunitarianotionofhomogeneousbackgroundmoralconvictionshateachindividuals alwaysalready

imbuedwith and hataremerely o be rediscovereds the will of thecommonsubject.Deep-seateddifferenceand strongdisagreementarepartof pluralistocieties hatmustbe taken nto accountn anylegitimatemodelof strongdemocracy.

Habermasejects hesesubject-centeredonceptions,he "transcen-

dentalego of the Critique f PracticalReasonor thepeopleof the

SocialContract"-hewill of the ndividualnd hewill of thecommu-nal

macrosubject.85orboth iberalism nd

communitarianism,emo-

cratic egitimacys derived rom the expression f already ormed

opinions, itherpre-discursiventerests rpre-given alues.Bothpo-sitionsarerooted nnotionsof a self-determiningubject,ndividualorcollective.Against hese,Habermasositsthediscursive pinion-andwill-formationf a reasoning ublic.Rather hana consensus f

pre-discursiveills orhearts, ublicopinionormation ccurshroughanongoing rocessof rational eliberationhatrespectsdifference.

Conclusion

Differencedemocrat riticsof thepublicsphereconception s con-ceivedthroughHabermas'heoryof communicativeationalityave

arguedhat t supportsxclusivepoliticaldiscourseorthreereasons:it promotesa rationalistorm of discoursehatdevaluesaesthetic-affective tylesof interaction,hichresultsncertain roups'waysof

speakingbeingprivilegedver

others;t assumes hat

powercan be

separatedromcommunication,hichmasksexclusionanddomina-

tion;and tpromotesonsensus s thepurpose f deliberation,hich

marginalizesoicesthatdonotreadily gree.However, havearguedthat hesecritiques re nfactbasedonlimited eadings f Habermas.

Mymoreexpansive eading f thepublic phere onceptionhows hatitdoes n factaccommodateesthetic-affectiveormsofdiscourse,hatit accounts or bothnegative ndpositive ormsof power n commu-

nication, nd hat tpromotesheprocess atherhan heend-point f

rational eliberationnpublicopinion ormation.

Infact,disagreementnddifference re hewholepointof thepublicsphere,which deallycombinesbothagonisticandrespectfulormsof argumentationna democraticontestationf position.Ontheone

hand,heinformal iscursiveublic phere llowsvoicesandconflicts







130

to be expressedn waysin whichthe more nflexible ormal nstitu-tions of democraticovernance o not allow.Ontheotherhand, he

discursive onditions ct to protectandnurture ifference.The con-ceptionworks omaximizenclusion, lthoughhis doesrelyupon he

exclusionof coercion nddomination. hisexclusionnotonlyworks

to definedemocraticommunication,utalso indicateshat hepublic

spheres a discursive rocesswithcontinuallyontested oundaries.

This is not to say the publicsphere dealizationwill be fullyreal-izedin practice, r that heconceptionwill notbe useduncritically,as "rationalist"eliberativeemocrats ftendo,or that t will not beusedcynically o maskpower,as JodiDeandemonstratess exten-

sivelybeingdoneby manyof those ndividualsndgroups mbracinginformationocietyrhetoric.86s an idealization,hepublicsphere

conceptions usefulnotonlyfor the critical valuationf the demo-

craticquality f actually xistingpublic ommunicativeractices,nd

thus forthinking bouthowtheycanbe madedemocratic,utalso

forhighlightingimitedandideologicalormsof publicity peratingin theinterests f dominantroups.Thus, orthosetheoristseeking

tocritique resentystemsofcoercion, omination,ndexclusion,heHabermasianublic phere emains legitimate emocraticorm.

Acknowledgments

Thisresearch asbeenundertakenith undingrom heNew ZealandFoundationor Research,Science,andTechnology. wouldlike to

thank he Theory ndSocietyEditorn chargeof thisarticleandtheanonymousefereesortheirhelpful omments.

Notes

1. See, or xample, ygmuntauman, iquidModernityCambridge,K:PolityPress, 000);

Zygmunt auman, ocietyUnderSiege(Cambridge,K:Polity, 002);SeylaBenhabib,"TowardDeliberative odel fDemocraticegitimacy,"nSelyaBenhabib,ditor, emoc-

racyand

Difference: ontestingheBoundaries

fthePolitical

Princeton,J:Princeton

Universityress,1996);SeylaBenhabib, heClaims f CulturePrinceton,J:Princeton

Universityress,2002);JamesBohman, ublicDeliberation:luralism,Complexity,nd

DemocracyCambridge, A:MIT,1996);JohnS. Dryzek,Deliberative emocracynd

BeyondOxford:OxfordUniversityress, 000); risM.Young,nclusionndDemocracy

(Oxford:OxfordUniversityress, 000).2. JiirgenHabermas,etween actsandNorms:Contributionso a DiscourseTheory fLaw

andDemocracy,rans.WilliamRehg Cambridge,K:PolityPress,1996),360-362.







131

3. JiirgenHabermas,The StructuralTransformationf the Public Sphere:An Inquiryinto a

CategoryofBourgeois Society,trans.ThomasBurger Cambridge,MA: MITPress, 1989).4. Ratherthanattempting o derivecriticalnorms from specific historicalmoments, formal

pragmaticsaims to unearth hegeneralstructures f actionandunderstandinghat areintu-

itivelydrawnuponineverydaycommunicativepractice.The method sformalintheKantian

senseof attemptingoreconstructheconditionsofpossibilityof communicativenteraction.

This, as Maeve Cookeexplains,"contrastswith empiricalpragmaticresearch o the extent

that the latter s concernednot withthe reconstruction f generalcompetenciesbutwith the

descriptionandanalysisof specific elements of languageuse. It is pragmaticto the extent

that it focuses on the use of language,andhence, on speechacts or utterances,n contrast

to semantics(whichis concernedwith thepropertiesof isolatedsentences)."MaeveCooke,

Languageand Reason:A Study of Habermas'sPragmatics(Cambridge,MA: MITPress,

1994),3.

5. These conditionsarefullydetailed n LincolnDahlberg,"TheHabermasianPublicSphere:A Specificationof the Idealized Conditions of DemocraticCommunication," tudies in

Social and Political Theory,10, no. 2 (2004): 2-18. For this specificationI drawuponHabermas' heoriesof communicativeaction,discourseethics,and deliberativedemocracy.Inparticularrefer oJiirgenHabermas,TheTheory fCommunicativeAction,vol. 1,Reason

and theRationalizationofSociety, trans.ThomasMcCarthy Boston:BeaconPress, 1984),

1-26; Habermas,TheStructuralTransformationf the Public Sphere;JiirgenHabermas,Moral Consciousness and CommunicativeAction, trans. ChristianLenhardtand ShierryN. Weber(Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1990), 43-115; Habermas,Between Facts and

Norms, 267-387; JiirgenHabermas,"FromKant's Ideas'of PureReasonto the 'Idealizing'

Presuppositionsof CommunicativeAction:Reflectionson the Detranscendentalized Use

of Reason,"' in, William Rheg and JamesBohman,editors,Pluralism and the PragmaticTurn:TheTransformation f CriticalTheory Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2001).

6. Some of the morecomplex critiquesof thepublic/private ichotomycanbe foundin Seyla

Benhabib,Situatingthe Self- Gender,Communityand Postmodernismn ContemporaryEthics(Cambridge,UK:PolityPress,1992), 108-109;NancyFraser,"Rethinkinghe Public

Sphere:A Contributiono theCritiqueof ActuallyExisting Democracy,"n FrancisBarker,PeterHulmeandMargaret versen, editors,Postmodernism nd theRe-Readingof Moder-

nity, (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress, 1992);Nancy Fraser,JusticeInterruptus:CriticalReflectionson the "Postsocialist"Condition New York:Routledge,1997);Anne

Phillips, "FromInequality o Difference:A SevereCase of Displacement?"New LeftRe-

view 224 (July/August1997):143-153; Iris M. Young,Justice and the Politicsof Difference

(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1990). These theoristsdo not argue,as some

earlierfeministshave,that we should discard hisbinary altogether.All agreethat thepub-

lic/privatedistinctionmust be retained n some form. As Philips asserts, "wemightwant

to say thateverything s political,but this does not commit us to the view thatthere is no

difference betweenprivateandpublic life." See Philips, "FromInequality o Difference,"149. Theproblem or all thesetheorists s whereto draw he line betweenpublicandprivateand who shouldhave thepowerto dothedrawing.See, inparticular,Benhabib,Situating he

Self 18;Fraser, usticeInterruptus;Young,Justiceandthe PoliticsofDifference, 119-120.

7. Differencedemocrat riticsof Habermas'discourse heory,who aremostlyfeminist hinkers,

broadlyfall into two camps.Postmoderneaningcriticsofferagonisticandaestheticalter-

nativesto Habermas'conception.See, forexample,JodiDean,"CivilSociety: Beyondthe

Public Sphere," n David Rasmussen, editor,TheHandbookof Critical Theory(Oxford:

Blackwell, 1996); Jane Flax, "Is EnlightenmentEmancipatory?A Feminist Reading of'Whatis Enlightenment?"'n FrancisBarker,PeterHulme andMargaret versen, editors,PostmodernismndtheRe-readingofModernity Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,

1992); ChantalMouffe, "Democracy,Power,andthe 'Political,"' n Selya Benhabib,edi-

tor,Democracyand Difference(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996);Chantal

Mouffe, The DemocraticParadox(London:Verso,2000); JudithSquires, "In Different

Voices:DeliberativeDemocracyandAestheticPolitics," n James Good andIrving Velody,







132

editors,ThePolitics fPostmodernityCambridge,K:Cambridgeniversityress,1998).More ympatheticriticsattempto develop, atherhandiscard,he Habermasianublicsphere.See,forexample, raser, RethinkinghePublicSphere";risM.Young, Impar-tiality nd heCivicPublic: omeImplicationsf Feminist ritiquesf Moral ndPolitical

Theory,"nSelyaBenhabibndDrucillaCornell, ditors, eminisms Critique:ssaysonthePolitics fGendernLate-CapitalistocietiesCambridge,K:PolityPress,1987);risM.Young, Communicationnd heOther: eyondDeliberativeemocracy,"nMargaretWilson ndAnnaYeatman,ditors,ustice nd dentity: ntipodeanracticesWellington:

BridgetWilliamsBooks,1995).Young,nclusion ndDemocracy;enhabib,TowardDeliberative odelof Democraticegitimacy";enhabib, heClaims fCulture.

8. See PeterDahlgren,Televisionndthe PublicSphere:Citizenship, emocracyndtheMediaLondon:age,1995),103; risM.Young, Communicationnd heOther: eyondDeliberativeemocracy"nSelyaBenhabib,ditor,DemocracyndDifferencePrinceton,NJ:Princeton niversityress,1996),123.

9. Bohman, ublicDeliberation:luralism, omplexity,ndDemocracy,5;Dahlgren, ele-visionand hePublicSphere; lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"oung, Communi-cation nd heOther,"23.

10. See Dahlgren,Televisionndthe PublicSphere,101; Flax,"IsEnlightenmentmanci-

patory?"46-247;Fraser, RethinkinghePublicSphere,"24;JaneMansbridge,Self-Interest ndPoliticalTransformation,"nGeorgeE.MarcusndRusselL.Hanson, ditors,

Reconsideringhe Democratic ublic Pennsylvania:ennsylvaniaateUniversity ress,

1993), 9;Squires,InDifferent oices"; oung, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"1-73;

Young,ustice nd hePolitics fDifference,18;Young,nclusion ndDemocracy,9.11. Young, Communicationnd heOther,"23-124.12. EyalRabinovitch,Gender ndthe PublicSphere:Alternative ormsof Integrationn

Nineteenth-Centurymerica,"ociologicalTheory 9,no. 3 (2001):344-369.See also

Dean,"CivilSociety,"25-235.

13. Ibid.14. Dahlgren, elevisionnd hePublicSphere;lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"oung,

Justice nd hePolitics fDifference.15. SeeDahlgren, elevisionndthePublicSphere; lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"

PaulHoggettndSimonThompson,TowardsDemocracyftheEmotions,"onstellations

9,no.1(2002):106-126.16. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"2.

17. Young raws ponKristeva'sheory f significationo illustratehecentralityf affectiveandbodilydimensions f meaning. orKristeva,veryutterance asboth"symbolic"nd

"semiotic"spects.By symbolic,Kristevameans he referentialunctionhatsituates

speakern termsof a reality utside f themselves. hissymbolic spects, accordingo

Young, hatHabermasalorizes. ut heresalsoa"semiotic"spectoevery tterancethe

unconscious,odily,ensuousspects futterancessuch srhythm,oneofvoice,metaphor,wordplayandgesture."eeYoung, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"1.Similarly,cott

Lash, rawing ponLyotard,mphasizeshatnallsignificationoth discourse"nd"figure"arepresent. he"discursive"the ormof communicationabermasrioritizes proceeds

bythe rulesandrational roceduresf theegoand unctionswithin heframeworkf the

reality rinciple.he iguralstheexpressionf desire nd temsrom heunconscious herethepleasure rinciple oldssway.Discourse nd igure re nterwovenn communicative

acts.See ScottLash,"Reflexivitynd tsDoubles: tructure,esthetics,Community,"n

UlrichBeck,AnthonyGiddensndScottLash, ditors,ReflexiveModernization:olitics,TraditionndAestheticsntheModern ocialOrderCambridge,K:PolityPress,1994).Alsosee, StevenBest andDouglasKellner, ostmodern heory:Critical nterrogations(London:MacMillan,991),149;Dahlgren, elevisionnd hePublicSphere, 10.

18. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"3.

19. MichaelWalzer,Passion ndPolitics,"hilosophyndSocialCriticism8,no. 2 (2002):617-633. Of all the differencedemocrats,ChantalMouffechampionshe virtuesol







133

passion or democracymostardently, rguinghatby suppressingassion herational-ist normsof deliberationndermine emocraticolitics.See Mouffe,TheDemocratic

Paradox;ChantalMouffe,"Politics ndPassions:TheStakesof Democracy,"entreortheStudyof DemocracyUniversityf Westminster,002),http://www.wmin.ac.uk/csd/Politicsandpassions.pdf.

20. Hoggett ndThompson,TowardsDemocracyf theEmotions,"14.21. See, forexample,Mouffe, TheDemocraticParadox.

22. Habermas as neverhiddenhis distrust f the aesthetic-affectiveodesof expressionnrelation o practical iscourse.nSTPShe notonlyshowshow aesthetic-affectiveormscan be utilized nrepresentationalublicityinfeudalpompandmodempublic elations

exercises)omanipulateublic pinion, ut s"franklyostileotheatre,ourtlyorms, ere-

mony,hevisual, nd orhetoricmore enerally."ohnD.Peters, DistrustfRepresentation:Habermasn the PublicSphere,"Media,CulturendSociety15,no.4 (1993):541-571,at562. SinceSTPSHabermasascontinuedobesuspiciousf oratory isplay s well as

rhetoricwit, rony, aradox,llusion,metaphor)spossibly eceptivedistortionary)odesof communicativeaction. SeeHabermas,TheTheoryof Communicative ction,331;Jiirgen

Habermas,Further eflectionsn thePublicSphere,"nCraigCalhoun,ditor,Habermas

and hePublicSphereCambridge, A:MITPress,1992), 26-427.Inan nterviewiveninOctober998,Habermasxpressesisdeepdistrustf aesthetic-affectiveommunicationinthepolitical rena.Hebegins he nterviewyreferringo Germany'secently efeated

Chancellor, elmutKohl,as thesymbolof hisowngeneration'seaction o the aesthet-ics of Nazism.Kohlrepresented,eflectsHabermas,he "almost odilydisavowal"f the

"politicalesthetic"hathadbeencentralo "themonstrous ises-en-scinef NaziralliesortheChaplinesquenticsof ourfascistmountebanks.ertainly e oftengroaned t the

shapeless rovincialismfKohl'swords ndgestures. utI came oappreciatehedeflation

of sonorous acuities ndbanalizationf public eremonieshatwentwith t."Habermasconcludes y positinghe deal ormof therepublics one in which here s "adispositionwhichwassuspiciousfany hetoricf thehighor hedeep,which esistednyaestheticiza-tionofpolitics, utalsoguardedgainstrivializationherehe ntegritynd ndependenceof the ifeof themindwasatstake." eeJiirgenHabermas,There reAlternatives,"ew

LeftReview 31(September/October998):3-12, at4, 12.Yetdespitehisdeclared ver-sion otheaesthetic-affectiveodes fexpression, abermastilizes uch tyles nhisown

political rguments.or nstance,Best andKellner bserve hatHabermas'hilosophicalDiscoursefModernityemploysiteraryonstruction,opioushetoric,nd requent oralandpolitical assion."ee Best andKellner, ostmodernheory,50. Thisof course anbe readpositively,s ademonstrationf Habermas'cceptance,espite eservations,f the

roleof aesthetic-affectivespects fpublic phere iscourse. or uchareadingee JohnSBrady, Nocontest?AssessingheAgonisticCritiquesf JiirgenHabermas'sheory f thePublicSphere,"hilosophy& SocialCriticism0,no.3 (2004):331-354,at 348-349.

23. Thisstrain f deliberativeemocracys discussed ndcritiqued y Dryzekwhopoints oitsassimilation ith iberal onstitutionalismntheUnitedStates. eeDryzek,Deliberative

DemocracyndBeyond,0-30.IagreewithDryzekncallingora radical rcritical elib-erative emocraticheoryhatemphasizesheclashof meanings,dentities,ndpositionsinpublic phere(s)utside ormal olitical ecision-making.

24. Lash,"Reflexivitynd tsDoubles."25. Benhabib,TowardDeliberative odelof Democraticegitimacy,"2-83.26. SimoneChambers,ReasonableDemocracy:JiirgenHabermasand the PoliticsofDiscourse

(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversity ress,1996),101.Idealroletaking equiresthatparticipantsakeonboth heposition fthegeneralizedabstract)ther nd hepositionof theconcreteparticular)ther.Formoreon howtheseconceptionsf the other anbe

synthesized ithina theoryof moraldiscourse,ee Benhabib,ituatingheSelf;Brenda

Lyshaug, Reciprocity,espect, ndDemocratic ngagement:heValueof Deliberation

in a HeterogeneousPublic;',"he American Political Science AssociationAnnualMeeting

(SanFrancisco,001).







134

27. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,57-77.

28. Ibid.,58,61.29. Ibid.,59-60.

30. Ibid.,71.31. Ibid.,72.32. Ibid.,72-73. Fora more n-depthreatmentf howexcludedwomen'sroups avegained

recognitionhrougharrativesn thepublic phereee Maria .Lara,MoralTextures:em-inist Narratives n thePublicSphere (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1998).

33. Young,InclusionandDemocracy,7.

34. Ibid.,73-74. See alsoBenhabib, heClaims fCulture,4.

35. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,73.

36. RobertE.Goodin, DemocraticeliberationWithin,"hilosophy&PublicAffairs, 9,no.1(2000):81-109 at95-97.

37. AngeliaK.Means, Narrativergumentation:rguing ithNatives," onstellations,,no.

2 (2002):221-245.38. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,65.

39. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy.40. Young,InclusionandDemocracy,64.

41. Ibid.,63-65.42. Ibid.,67-70.

43. Sometimesmarginalizedroupshave o takeon the formof rhetoric sedby dominant

groups n order o be recognized, hichmayinvolve"dispassionate"estern eliber-ativestyles.However,his does notnecessarilymeanassimilation ndnormalizing,s

Rabinovitchrguest does. SeeRabinovitch,Gendernd the PublicSphere,"48. The

voiceof thedominant aybe usedstrategicallyoargueoranexpansionnstyleofpublicdiscourse.

44. See Dryzek,DeliberativeDemocracyandBeyond,70.

45. MauriceCharland,ThePlaceof ImpietynCivicArgument,"avnost/Theublic8,no.3

(2001):35-50 at 48-49.

46. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,47-51.

47. Forexamples f howstorytelling,reeting, ndrhetorican undermineeliberation,ee

Dryzek,DeliberativeDemocracyandBeyond,68-72; HoggettandThompson,"Towards

Democracyf theEmotions,"17-118;Young,nclusionndDemocracy,7-80.48. RichardRorty, Justice s a LargerLoyalty,"n RonBontekoe ndMarietta tepaniants,

editors, Justice and Democracy: Cross-CulturalPerspectives (Honolulu: University of

Honolulu ress,1997),18.

49. Ibid.50. Somepostmodernheorists elebrate ndpromote ifferencen andof itself.Others,uch

asMouffe, ccepthat norder o maximizenclusionwemayneed orestrict omevoices

andmodesof expression,nd hatconfrontationn a democraticublic phere eeds obe

"playedutunderonditionsegulatedyasetof deliberativerocedures."hile elebrating

passion nd mbracingheagonisticspects fpolitics, xplicitly ositioningerself gainsta deliberativeodel fdemocraticegitimacy,Mouffe rgueshatpassions eed o be tamed

"bymobilizinghem ordemocraticnds."Mouffe, Politics ndPassions,"-10. Also see

Mouffe, Democracy,ower,nd he Political,'"46.51. Hoggett ndThompson,TowardsDemocracyf theEmotions,"21.52. See Kenneth aynes, Communicativethics,he PublicSphere ndCommunication e-

dia,"Critical StudiesinMass Communication 1,no. 4 (1994): 315-326, at 317.

53. DanielC.Hallin, Introduction,"n DanielC.Hallin, ditor,WeKeepAmericanTop fthe

WorldLondon: outledge,994),9.54. See StevenBest, ThePolitics of Historical Vision:Marx, Foucault,Habermas(New York:

GuilfordPress,1995),194; Dean,"CivilSociety," 24-235; Mouffe,TheDemocratic

Paradox,142-146;DavidM. Rasmussen, eadingHabermasCambridge,MA: Basil

Blackwell, 990),51-54.







135

55. DanaR. Villa, "Postmodernism ndthe PublicSphere,"AmericanPolitical Science Review

86,no.3 (1992):712-721,at715.56. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,233.

57. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"0.58. Peters, Distrustf Representation,"64.59. MarkPoster,The Second MediaAge (Cambridge,UK: PolityPress, 1995),48.

60. Itis interestinghat ritics fHabermas'heory f communicativeationalityisagreeverwhether ehasoverestimatedrunderestimatedowerwithin iscourse.While number f

critics,ncludingMouffe, ee communicativectionasunderestimatinghepervasivenessof power,Lashbelieves hat t over-emphasizesower: itclaims o see powern placeswherepowerustisn't." eeMouffe,TheDemocraticaradox; ash,"Reflexivitynd ts

Doubles," 50.Similarly,riticsdisagree boutwhetherHabermas verestimatesr un-derestimateshecontestationaryature f democratic iscourse.WhileFlax andMouffecall for moreemphasis ponthe agonisticaspectsof politics,Young ees deliberative

democracys alreadyoo conflictual. deliberativeemocratic odelcontains oth hecontestationf positionsand the search ormutualunderstandinghroughhis contes-

tation:hetwo arebroughtogether ia thenormativeonceptionf thepublicsphere.SeeFlax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"hantalMouffe,TheReturn f thePolitical

(London:Verso,1993);Mouffe,TheDemocraticParadox;Young,"Inclusion ndDemocracy

Legitimacy."61. JeffreyAlexander,TheLongandWindingRoad:CivilRepairof Intimatenjustice,"

Sociological heory 9,no.3 (2001):371-400,at 374.Regardingorms, ormalizing,nd

Foucault, lexanderrgueshat

[t]he existenceof a norm,and its partial nstitutionalization,annot beequatedwith normalization, conceptconnoting deologicalhegemony,social conformity,nd de-individuation.oucault's ower-knowledgeexus

can envisononly normalization ecause t equatesculturalconformity

actingin accordancewith normative rescriptionsr ideals- with social

conformity.his s a fundamentalheoreticalrror, ne thathasplagued venthe mostsophisticatedheorizingromParsonsoBourdieu.hismistakeeads

not onlyto the empirical istortion f contemporaryife butalso to moral

pessimism.toftenproduces olitical rresponsibilitys well,forit denies he

possibilityhat herecan bejusticewithout adical upture, ithout everingthecarefully oven ilamentsfdemocratisingndmodernizingocieties.Ibid.)

62. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,233-234.

63. Foradiscussion f theperformativeontradictionebate etweenHabermasnd hepost-structuralistsee, MartinJay,ForceFields: Between IntellectualHistoryand CulturalCri-

tique NewYork:Routledge,993). want o thank he editors f TheoryndSocietyor

alertingmeto this ext.64. Habermas,etween actsandNorms, 25-326, 375-376;Fraser, Rethinkinghe Public

Sphere,"25; Mouffe,TheDemocraticaradox, 8-99;Young, Communicationnd he

Other,"23-124.

65. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,8.

66. Baynes, Communicativethics,"18.

67. See Habermas,TheTheoryof CommunicativeAction,307.68. See, forexample,Jean-Frangoisyotard,ThePostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge

(Manchester:anchesterniversityress,1984).CarolC.Gould, DiversityndDemoc-

racy:Representingifferences,"n SelyaBenhabib, ditor,DemocracyndDifference:Contestingthe Boundariesof the Political (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996),

172-174;Mouffe,"Democracy,ower, nd he'Political,"'48; Flax,"IsEnlightenmentEmancipatory?"








136

70. This s notto deny heenabling ower f strategicnd nstrumentalctionwhen ntheir

proper lace.71. IrisM.Young, Activist hallengesoDeliberativeemocracy,"oliticalTheory9,no. 5

(2001):670-690,at 686-687.72. SeeMouffe,TheDemocraticaradox;Mouffe, Politics ndPassions."

73. This s alsoargued yDryzek,DeliberativeemocracyndBeyond; oung, Activist hal-

lenges o Deliberativeemocracy."74. SeeDryzek,DeliberativeemocracyndBeyond; enhabib,TowardDeliberative odel

of Democraticegitimacy."75. This wo-track odel s fullyoutlinednHabermas,etween actsandNorms.

76. Habermas,Theoryof CommunicativeAction,42.

77. SimoneChambers,DiscoursendDemocraticractices,"nStephenK.White, ditor,The

Cambridgeompaniono HabermasCambridge,K:Cambridgeniversityress,1995),250.

78. Jeremy hapiroxplainshat:"Bildungiterallymeans formation,'ut also 'education'

and cultural)cultivation.'nGermanhesenarrower eaningslways onnote n overall

developmentalrocess.Willensbildung,iterallyhe formationfwill,' .. [is]translateds

'decisionmaking.'Given hemeaning f Bildung,Willensbildungmphasizesheprocess(ofdeliberationnddiscourse)hroughwhicha decisionwas'formed,'otthemoment twhich twas'made."'eremy hapiro,Translator'sreface,"nJiirgenHabermas,oward

a RationalSociety:StudentProtest, Science, and Politics, trans.Jeremy Shapiro(Boston:BeaconPress,1970).

79. Chambers,DiscoursendDemocraticractices,"38-239.


81. AsYoung otes,heagonisticmodel sproposedyMouffe an"come eryclose o a model

ofinterestroup ompetitionnwhich ggregated ightmakes ight." oung,nclusionnd

Democracy,51.

82. Habermas,BetweenFacts andNorms,362.

83. Habermas,FurthereflectionsnthePublicSphere,"45.

84. Ibid.85. Habermas,BetweenFacts andNorms, 103.

86. JodiDean,Publicitys Secret: The deologyof TechnocultureIthaca,NY:CornellUP,2002).

DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...

Documents

Transcript of DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...